Authors of the Ecomodernist Manifesto Respond to Critiques
The Ecomodernist Manifesto is a decade-old this year. Ten years go, an interdisciplinary group of scientists and thinkers came together to formulate a new kind of environmentalism for the modern world that all of humanity could embrace. “Both human prosperity and an ecologically vibrant planet are not only possible, but also inseparable,” they stated. Ecomodernism broadly argues that technological development can protect nature and improve human wellbeing through separating economic growth from environmental impacts.
While many hailed Ecomodernism as environmentalism for everybody, not everybody was a fan. To the authors of the manifesto, that was okay. They highlighted both positive and negative responses on their website.
Criticism hones ideas like a whetstone sharpens swords. A little over a year ago, three authors of the Manifesto, Erle C. Ellis, Mark Lynas, and Ted Nordhaus, offered four clarifications about Ecomodernism in the journal The Anthropocene Review in response to critics.
1. Naysayers widely questioned the Manifesto’s “Pollyanna” stance that future technology could solve environmental problems, accusing Ecomodernists of providing intellectual cover for inaction on climate change, habitat loss, and extinction. Ellis, Lynas, and Nordhaus clarified that Ecomodernism is not anti-action.
“Concerted public policy efforts and long-term investments are needed to end fossil fuel emissions, to conserve and restore habitats and end rapid extinctions, and to reduce harmful pollution,” they wrote.
2. Critics responded that an Ecomodernist approach could make us overly reliant on large-scale, intensive technologies that may exacerbate existing inequalities and damage local environments while sparing others.
While the authors reaffirmed that realistic fixes for the climate depend on technological advances, they were clear-eyed that technologies are ultimately tools that will have both positive and negative effects. “Even technological innovations that open up new opportunities for environmental and social benefits can create new problems—trade-offs—which then need to be addressed in turn.”
3. Advocates of degrowth as a response to environmental degradation denounced Ecomodernists for their worship of growth. Ellis, Lynas, and Nordhaus responded that economic growth isn’t a panacea.
“A mix of public and private sector actions are critical to shaping a better future for people and planet, including a strong role for governments and the state, both in regulating pollution and fostering technological innovation.”
4. Critics also challenged that Ecomodernism could disadvantage citizens of poor countries and leave them vulnerable to ravages of climate change. At the same time, techno-fixes to climate change could greatly increase the power of corporations and authoritarian governments. Ellis, Lynas, and Nordhaus unequivocally stated that Ecomodernism is for the people.
“We believe fundamentally that all human life is of equal value, that human rights are universal, and that a better world demands equal opportunity for all. We reject any form of dictatorship and support free and fair elections, press freedoms, and all forms of participatory politics and governance as fundamental human rights that extend beyond formal elections.”